Leaderboard

I've got an old vacuum cleaner I'm thinking of selling, its just knocking around collecting dust. Did you hear about the first restaurant to open on the moon? - It has great food but no atmosphere. There's a fine line between a numerator and a denominator. What did one ocean say to the other ocean? - Nothing it just waved. What do dentists call their X-rays? - Tooth pics

Where in theworld did you get the idea that that the distance would decrease? The tree is perpendicular to the ground so you have a right triangle. Your view-line from yourself, up the tree, and the object is the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The hypotenuse is always longer than the other two sides, not shorter!

That's simply false. Unexplained refers to something that at any particular time, we lack the observational data to explain properly...eg:There was a time when we lacked the knowledge to explain the forces controlling the Sun, or even the fact that the Sun is simply another star. Dictionary: not described or made clear; unknown."the reason for her summons was as yet unexplained" not accounted for or attributable to an identified cause."cot death is still an unexplained phenomenon" Supernatural is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.[1] This term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception. extract: The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts,[4] but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So in essence something "unexplained" may still be capable of being defined as scientific and by the laws of physics, whereas something that we define as "supernatural" is simply an unscientific application of myth and scientific ignorance. Examples: Some reported sightings that are generally referred to as UFO's/UAP's, are unexplained events...nothing more, nothing less. We have evidence of "something" that lacks the evidence to specify what it is or isn't. Supernatural on the other hand [as quoted from the WIKI link] "The philosophy of naturalism contends that all phenomena are scientifically explicable and nothing exists beyond the natural world, and as such approaches supernatural claims with skepticism".

Since we are leaning towards (computer) applications, rather the the pure Math of Analytical or Algebraic Geometry i would recommend the any/all of the following books. The first three are particularly applicable to CAD, meshes and so on, The last (Cundy) is a fun book about the practical side of making physical models of Mathematical objects such as polyhedra, the cone that runs uphill and many more.

Supernatural is just a word to pin on unexplained events, nothing more. We will never be able to explain everything in the Universe, so there must be supernatural events.

Start here for mesh modelling of real world solid objects. (if a T Rex is real world 🙂) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coons_patch

IIT (see the Koch interview posted earlier) does sort of "grade" consciousness..... AFAICT, phi has no upper boundary so IIT wouldn't be putting puny humans at any pinnacle.

These sort of matches are just a promotional spectacle and shouldn't be taken serious. John McEnroe who got slated for making a comment about Serena Williams at the time when she was ladies world No1. His comment was something along the lines of "If Serena competed on the men's circuit she would not rank any higher than 700th" I'm not sure of the exact details, but though controversial, this figure was just plucked out of his head and shouldn't be taken as "you cannot be serious" (sorry couldn't help myself). But it was generally accepted to some degree, and even by Serena herself, she went on to play an exhibition match against a male player ranked 203rd at the time and lost the match. This does not take away the fact that Serena Williams is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, and is an elite athlete who should be recognised equally as much as her male counter parts.

Christoph Koch is one of the cognitive scientists who supports Integrated Information Theory. I was going to post this at sciencechatforum.com, but it went belly up, so I'll post it here.... https://medium.com/@mitpress/christof-koch-on-the-feeling-of-life-itself-and-how-technology-allows-us-to-observe-consciousness-e52b39091ad3 I note that his (and Tononi's) "intrinsic causal powers of the brain" sounds a bit like sneaking dualism in the back door. Like Searle, he attaches great importance to substrate.

What nuance can be brought to bear? If "consciousness" is the experience of and communication with a god-entity and you have no such experience or communication, then you are not "conscious". If the god-entity takes note and enters your mind in a moment of Zen or zone or zonk and makes itself known to you, that is presumably the "consciousness"-switch being turned on. It's the only way I can imagine the OP definition working. [what do we have to communicate from a state of unconsciousness?] Where does an unconscious biomass get information, why would it feel the urge to pass on information, and to whom? Slates don't. Clouds don't. Moons don't. Trees do, but it's a kind of communication to which we are not privy. Is it possible that dumb trees are in contact with the god-entity whose experience is denied to intelligent atheists? I think so. I always sniff carefully before biting.

You done that and obtained a conclusive response from Windows 10? I believe that you just mocked me and/or my input. Please don't do that again. The problem of AI/internet awareness and the dangers related to AI (aware or not) are very serious. If you simply react to what others write and do not read it carefully enough you are likely to knee jerk to the worng conclusions. I did not say this. I did say Like Windows 10 does already ? Windows 10 does both of these things. If you don't know this just ask. But no I do not consider W10 to be self aware, just a bloody nuisance.

I watch MMA. Some women in the sport have raised concerns about transgender athletes, which is how it came to my attention. Some in the medical have put forward scientific reasons to legitimise this concern, others refute these reasons, and that debate continues within the medical community (links have been provided in the course of this thread). To have these concerns just brushed away as ridiculous, and to equate them with resistance against gay marriage is unhelpful at best. It's the sort of rhetoric that pushes people toward Trump and Brexit, as it exacerbates the us vs them attitude that precludes nuanced debate - the nuance here being that having concerns about transgender athletes does not automatically make you transphobic (although it's likely true that all transphobes oppose all trans athletes and will leverage legitimate concerns to muddy the waters). It may turn out that these concerns are unfounded, but i would hope, on a science forum of all places, that the concerns were addressed rather than being dismissed simply ridiculous. It is patronising.

Good members of the community helping along until everything makes sense and OP helping clarify own question. Business as unusual. Thanks to everybody involved.

How so ? You made a very specific statement with a subject a verb, an object and a conclusion. Like Windows 10 does already ? Yes I picked this out of your post because of its specifity and made the totally correct observation that Windows 10 already does both the stashing and the initiating/refusing of tasks. So it would not be a new phenomenon to watch for it is already happening. The question mark at the end was in invitation to discuss further if you wished. Your response was to quote a totally different part of your post To which I had not responded and then claim that There can be no mockery in my totally true statement about Windows10, which was the only one I made in that post you took unwarranted exception to. I am sorry if you misconstrued those simple words, had I actually been rude I would apologise.

Maybe ask a roundworm.